At the beginning of the 20th century, oil (petroleum) represented four percent of the world's consumed energy. Today oil supplies 40 percent of the world's energy, 96 percent of which is transportation energy . The global demand for oil continues to grow at an alarming and unsustainable rate. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to make meaningful oil discoveries, and known oil reserves are now primarily located in unstable developing nation states or within remote geographic regions far from consuming nations. While nations have always competed for oil, it seems more and more likely that the race for the remaining last big reserves will be the dominant geopolitical theme of the 21st century.

The U.S. is on the verge of a new kind of war—between those who are seeking oil and are increasingly —to go out and secure it, and those determined to disrupt its flow to promote their agenda. As demand for oil increases, as global oil production continues to lag behind demand, as terrorists increasingly target oil production and infrastructure, and as producers such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria grow more unstable, the struggle to maintain access to adequate energy supplies--always a critical mission for any nation--will become even more challenging and uncertain and will require more resources, political attention, and military intervention to secure.

Better solution? Absolutely. Yes. We should be drilling in ANWR, starting up more clean nuclear reactors, and becoming completely energy-self-sufficient. There isn't any technical reason why we cannot go nuclear-hydrogen rather than fossil fuel, and be using our own oil during the transition. It would be better for us, better for the environment, and better for the rest of the world.

Simpler? Well, probably not. You see, we have these things called "environmentalists" here in the states. They don't really care much about the environment, they are mostly just looking for a religious cause. But attempting to change the political scene in the U.S. would take, well, real leadership. Some probably see the procurement of energy by any means as superior to changing the scene in the states.

You're correct in the theory, just too kind to the political scene in the U.S. to assume that anyone can actually do anything about it. It takes 60% of the Senate to get anything done. Rarely does this happen unless the Senators' constituents are getting money.

Addressing the asymmetry by harming the U.S. economy (i.e., legislating lower energy consumption) would of course be absurd and unnecessary (and for that reason I don't think you're suggesting that). Energy can be consumed cleanly.

That the competition for oil, that it comes from unstable states and is being used to fund terrorism are all well known problems.

Now..let's look at this from an American-centric perspective-because I am American.

People who not only propound but are putting into action a divinely mandated genocide against America and the enslavement of the rest of humanity are using the money we give them to fund this war against us. By what logic should we permit them to continue with this when we could crush them in an hour?

The logic is that of globalism, political-correctness (which paralyzes one in suicidal nonsense) and of course the open air bribing of American public officials by Saudi Arabia.

So perhaps we need to change the debate away from fantastical dreams of cooperation to asking ourselves if we do not have the legitimate right of self defense. To include "pre-emption"...although I question how pre-emptive anything is in a war many years along.

As far as going to the UN with our problems.."Sound governance amongst fragile oil exporting states must be collectively addressed by the United Nations.."

That would be interesting to see in action...considering the only body on earth with worse governance, worse corruption and arguably a worse human rights record is the UN.
Of course...if the UN got this job...the gravy would be so fat city as to make the Saddam Oil for Food scam look like chump change.

I don't question the good Dr. Anderson's diagnosis. Just his prescription. Thank you for your fine mono-graph Sir. It does bring the problems into sharp relief.